Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1029

Reforming the EPA’s Science Advisory Board

Argument in favor

This bill will enhance the diversity of thought and perspective on the EPA's Science Advisory Board. Also reduces conflicts of interest and expands opportunities for public involvement.

Inez's Opinion
···
03/14/2015
All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Peter's Opinion
···
03/10/2015
This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Joe's Opinion
···
03/15/2015
Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Keeping scientists who have received EPA grants off of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board would dilute the pool of talent available to consult on environmental issues.

JordanForeman's Opinion
···
03/04/2015
I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
Steven's Opinion
···
01/01/2016
Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Jim's Opinion
···
03/18/2015
Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
Like (10)
Follow
Share

Bill Details

Official information provided by the Congressional Research Service. Learn more or make a suggestion.
The Congressional Research Service writes summaries for most legislation. These summaries are listed here. Countable will update some legislation with a revised summary, title or other key elements.

Suggest an update to this bill using our form.

Title

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

Official Title

To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes.

Summary

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (Sec. 2) This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to revise the process of selecting members of the Science Advisory Board, guidelines for participation in Board advisory activities, and terms of office. The Board provides scientific advice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This bill requires the Board to independently provide that advice. Among the revisions to requirements concerning the Board's membership are the following: a requirement to balance scientific and technical points of view; a set minimum level of representation from state, local, or tribal governments; allowance of affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board's advisory activities; conflict of interest restrictions; restrictions on participation in advisory activities involving review of a member's work; restrictions on appointment of registered lobbyists; and prohibitions on member receipt of current EPA grants or contracts. The EPA must make public a list of nominees to the Board and accept public comments on the nominees. Reports filed upon the provisional nomination of a member disclosing financial relationships and interests must also be made public. The EPA must provide draft risk or hazard assessments in its regulatory proposals and documents to the Board. The Board's advice and comments must be included in the record regarding any such proposal and published in the Federal Register. The Board's member committees and investigative panels must operate in accordance with the membership, participation, and policy requirements contained in this Act, including new requirements for public participation in advisory activities of the Board. The member committees and investigative panels do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board and may not report directly to the EPA. The bill imposes additional public participation requirements: The EPA and the Board must make public all reports and relevant scientific information at the same time they are received by the Board. The Board must hold public information-gathering sessions to discuss the state of the science related to a major advisory activity. Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel, the EPA must accept and address public comments on questions asked of the Board. The Board, member committees, and investigative panels may not accept a question that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity. The Board must strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, communicate uncertainties, encourage dissenting members to make their views known, conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its activities address the most important scientific issues affecting the EPA, and respond to Congress fully and in a timely manner.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
  • The house Passed March 17th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 236 Yea / 181 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    IntroducedFebruary 24th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Science is science and your "opinions" have no place in it.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems to me this bill seeks to further politicize the agency. I see all kinds of problems with this bill.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm supposed to let a bunch of dead-eyed white guys s**t all over absolutely everything I stand for?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This is clearly another attempt by the GOP to minimize the power of the EPA. We are in a climate crisis right now. This sort of legislation is not what our country needs right now.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Abolish the EPA and return state power.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is another anti-science attack on necessary and sensible regulatory bodies.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    "Most of these rules are based on controversial scientific assertions and conclusions, so it is critical they be reviewed by a balanced panel of experts in an open and transparent manner. This bill directs EPA to undertake reforms to do just that.” - Solutions to climate change may be controversial, but the science isn't. Balanced panel of experts should primarily include experts in the environment, this isn't biased science the science just happens to support the left. 50/50 split is unbalanced when the scientific split is 97/3 (roughly).
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Letting people who aren't scientists draw scientific conclusions. How about no. --- And changing how board members are selected costs $2 million dollars???? What the actual fuck.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    A mixture of factors, good and bad, that would cost 2M without significant improvem
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If the corporate interests in the Republican Party feel like they can simply stack the team with "Scientists" in their favor instead of researching the facts then they simply stall the inevitable. Congress needs to be debating our reaction to climate change not debating the fact that it exists.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, reform it to include folks who do not have any ties to an entity who benefits from environmental issues. Conflict of interests are killing this planet.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This all boils down to the same ridiculous argument, that somehow 97% of the scientist in the world are wrong. It is a power play for the new incoming head of the EPA and his cronies to go back to straight oil and gas consumption. This is just their conniving way to get there.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a way for our "representatives" to discredit scientists and scientific research, we need to say NO. I live in Morgan Griffith's district, a rabid climate change denier. He voted "yes" soI vote NO.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of the provisions of this bill are generally useful, however, packaged as they are, this seems like nothing but a power grab.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE